Slashdot Mirror
Born with Couch Potato Genes?
An anonymous reader writes "Science Daily is reporting on an experiment that suggests that an individual's activity level shows a genetic basis. From the article: 'Research conducted by scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University reveals that a person's level of activity is likely an intrinsic property of that individual. [...] Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think,'"
Then again, I see nothing in the article that suggests such behavior/attitudes isn't learned from parents at an early age.
They need to do a lot more study, involving actual humans, twins separated early, adopted children, blah blah blah.
Nothing to see here, move along. (Never thought I'd actually say that on here, but this article is wildly speculative, with little evidence put forth for a true genetic basis. It fully warrants such a comment.)
....but the fact that we are here is directly related to the fact that our foreforefathers had to run away from scary predators; like tigers and dinosaurs and macrosoft. If they weren't athletic they'd be dead - and therefore we would not be here. SO if its couch-potato in our genes then technically our ancestors would have been bloody lazy. And dino food. Survival of the fittest anyone?
/. would have had ancestors who woulda been too friggin lazy to uh... procreate anyway.
Besides, if it's in the genes then
I love humanity, it is people I hate
I completely think that we never had free will, that everything that we do is because of all the circumstances that came before it. Sure, you THINK that you're choosing to do something, but the reason you're choosing that option is because of the experiences you've had.
From:
"Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
I'd rather trust the Iraqi minister of propaganda than the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Forget peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and thesis/dissertation defenses. Any scientist who wants to prove the worth of his research and conclusions should pass the "Slashdot Review".
;-)
I'm serious. Just post your paper here before showing it to your peers and if there's even the slightest problem it will be ripped to shreds in no time. Your ego might be shot but your reworked paper will be much stronger...
Don't forget to thank the Slashdot Collective in the final draft for their "constructive critisism"
That was 2 years ago. Over a year and a half, I lost 140 lbs and am a much more active person.
It wasn't easy, but it's definately do-able. Besides, as the saying goes, "If it's easy, it isn't worth doing."
Who says everything isn't to blame on genetics?
Problem with the article: Other nations are not so obese. People in the U.S. are much more obese than the citizens of any other nation, with the exception of a few islands where people eat a lot of coconut.
In Brazil, a large percentage of the population has the same genetic background as people in the U.S., because they are immigrants from the same countries. But people in Brazil are not nearly as grotesquely obese.
I'd say the obesity is caused by depression, and the depression is caused by the strong support for violence in the U.S. culture. The U.S. government has killed perhaps 4 million people since the end of the 2nd world war. In the U.S., killing other people is increasingly seen as a way to solve social problems or problems with political disagreement. Killing other people also makes money for families and friends with investments in the weapons and oil business, such as president George W. Bush and vice-president Cheney.
I saw a show not long ago about a guy who was extremely overweight, and of course he blamed his weight on genetics. He was finally starting to do something about it (due to being told "do something or you will die").
They showed him doing some exercise, then pausing to ask his wife to bring him a cherry soda. I thought "perhaps WATER would be a better choice there". Later he was shown eating a bucket of KFC. Hey buddy, try eating some VEGETABLES once in a while. The whole time, he was complaining that his weight was a "genetic problem".
Perhaps he did have a genetic pre-disposition to put on weight, but he definitely could have made some better choices in his diet. I'm pretty sure he didn't because he would have to take responsibility for his own weight, in which case he might be seen as a 'failure' for being overweight. It's far easier to blame someone else (your parents) than take responsibility for yourself.
My own experience: I have never had any issues with my own weight (actually, I have trouble putting on weight). My wife, however, was VERY overweight, and made all the usual excuses for it. About 18 months ago she decided she was going to take responsibility for her own weight. She now eats a far healthier diet, gets lots more exercise, and has so far lost nearly 50 kilograms (and still going).
Maybe you can blame everything on genetics. Doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
When I saw the title, I expected a study involving hundreds of separately adopted twins. 29 female monkeys in cages is a methodological joke. No conclusions can be made about genetics from this study, and the conclusions made should not necessarily be generalized to humans.
Problem: Body says "Eat until you aren't hungry." Instinct says "Eat this, it smells like it will give you lots of energy, you need energy." Mind says "Do things this way, it saves energy."
Outcome: You get fat. Not because you are inherently lazy, but because you have an ingrained drive to be more efficient, while your unconscious mental and physical processes haven't adapted to the extent to which you've reduced your energy needs for survival.
As has been pointed out, the whole stable weight thing is a bit of a balancing act. Behavior that keeps a person on the ragged edge of survival will tend to cause health problems in a situation where mere survival is no longer the taxing endeavor it once was. And lets not forget that America is populated by ethnicities of the largest stature: Europeans are certainly going to tend to out-weigh their Asian counterparts, being generally taller on average for starters. This whole attitude that Americans are somehow all pigs for being 5'8"-6' and 160-200lbs. is silly and ignorant. At 6' and 200lbs., I am "overweight" according to BMI charts, but with a 44" chest and a 36" waist, I certainly don't have a belly to speak of, and my arms and legs are pretty solidly muscled, with perhaps 20% body fat. Is it remotely possible that "over-weight" is not something that can be determined by two or three factors alone?
First of all, I agree that the BMI is completely useless, unscientific, and about the worst measure of health the government could have possibly come up with. I never ever use the BMI for anything. Bodyfat percentage is much more useful and indicative of overall health, along with blood pressure, resting heart rate (related to stroke volume and VO2), and other factors.
20% bodyfat is indeed pretty high for a Male, but it is not in the realm of unhealthy. Because you are on the borderline, I would consider this with your level of activity, your diet, your blood pressure, and other lifestyle factors such as whether you smoke or drink excessively. I think it is generally okay to have a higher bodyfat percentage as long as your blood pressure is normal and you get at least an hour of moderate aerobic exercise every day, and eat a diet that does not exceed 30% of calories from fat. Of course, IANAD, so see your physician with specific health concerns.
You're also right about the human tendency, and this is true with any animal, to eat until full. It goes way back to not knowing when one would be able to eat again. There is no need to eat until full anymore, but it is simply in our nature. However, free will gives us the ability to overcome this and stick to the thermodynamic model of weight maintenance.
So, you killed someone in cold blood, and your parents were murderers too - sorry, bud, you're still going to jail. No amount of genetic "blame" will ever allow us to trust you or your choices.
Steven Pinker did a thorough exploration of this in "The Blank Slate".
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
I was reminded of another recent study, in which it was show that some people do not benefit from exercise(!?)
Anways, I like how they stated it: "these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive." To me that confirms common sense - that people have different tendencies but with enough determination can often override them. Isn't that the case with just about everything?
They showed him doing some exercise, then pausing to ask his wife to bring him a cherry soda. I thought "perhaps WATER would be a better choice there". Later he was shown eating a bucket of KFC. Hey buddy, try eating some VEGETABLES once in a while. The whole time, he was complaining that his weight was a "genetic problem".
Well if his genetics or at least social disposition lead him to believe that he wanted a cherry soda and a bucket of KFC he had no choice in the matter. Well... He sort of did, but the neurons in his brain automatically fired off saying he needed or at least desired the cherry soda. His mind was simply unable to comprehend the desire for water so it did not happen.
Now saying people have no free will make many people angry and start talking about personal responsibility and he mearly had to choose the water.
Well... If you study Buddhism you will discover there is free will but it doesn't work like that.
Where as the normal free will person will say "I shouldn't drink the cherry soda because it is making me fat." and he will more likley fail to do so because he will come up with a counter reason like "Maybe just this one time" or "I'll drink one now but tommorrow I won't..."
That doesn't solve the problem. Chances are he'll just keep drinking the soda.
The more self-aware Buddhist person will go "I am aware for my desire for cherry soda. This maybe because of my genetics and I know it tastes better than water." and then goes on to meditate or at least rational and seperate themselves from that desire... (And maybe speculates on what makes a cherry soda and water taste the way it does and why he desires one over the other) not the obtainment of cherry soda itself.
It sounds hokey but it works. Or at least better than sheer willpower... But you have to learn a bit more about Buddhist meditation to really understand.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
BMI doesn't account for muscle mass, so it's not useful for people who do any sort of strength training. It doesn't tell you anything that you can't get by just looking in the mirror.
I'm 6'1" and about 180 lbs. I was definitely stronger over the summer when I was able to lift more regularly; I was close to 190 lbs. and I could see my abs. Yet, my BMI was borderline overweight.
I would agree that its not as useful for anyone who does a lot of strength training. Generally, though, I think that the vast majority of people are well-served by it. If you work out all the time, have very little body fat, etc, then its not for you. The GP was talking about being "fit" with 20% bodyfat and a 36 inch waist...
... but its not exactly ideal. Heck, even with a 32" waist I have a hard time finding pants in some stores (seriously) - they're usually 36-40. A quick visit to most overseas countries, even somewhere stereotypically overweight like Germany, will show you just how skewed our standards have become. FWIW, clothing stores over there generally started about a 28" waist in the adult section...
I think that one issue is that rather than being "fit" we think of ourselves as "normal." 20% bodyfat is probably below-normal in this country for an adult male
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Would you really want to follow the Bible's teachings? Have you actually read the Bible? It is full of insane contradictory stories and advice. If you applied it literally to your life, you would be locked up for being a menace to yourself and others, if not for outright crime.
The Bible is not anything that you can base your life on. Those who claim to be doing so are picking and choosing which parts to pay attention to. Which they have to becase the Bible contradicts itself all over the place.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Yes, and every time I wake up I want chips, but becasue I know that if I have a bag of chips in the house, no matter the size, that I'll eat the whole thing in a day I just stopped buying them. There's nothing meditative about it, it's called being realistic. If you are a massive fat ass you need to sit there and say, yes KFC would be nice, but I'm not going to eat it because that's stupid. Personal responcibility is something woefully lacking in todays society. Maybe I'm just the strong willed.
My old anatomy and physiology teacher put it best when a girl from our class who was very concerned with her weight (she was incredibly fit but overly compassionate towards others) wanted him to be nicer to people who might have glandular or metabolic problems.
"If you don't put food in your mouth you can't get fat. Genetics can give you a harder time, but without you, nothing is going to happen." My sibling posters have already mentioned that maybe 1500 calories a day is too much, or that maybe the way it's injested is problematic but the point remains that you're just as responcible for not knowing your limitations as your body is for having them.
I'd give anything to be 200lbs again, but it's going to be a struggle and may never happen. I don't overeat, but I do have a sedentary job. Going to a gym is not an option - bad knees, you see.
This is an interesting statement. I have struggled with weight issues my whole life. Two years ago I decided to make a change. Thing is, many people SAY they would 'do anything' to be at Xlbs, but it's just not true. They only way to actually make this happen is to commit to making a change - no matter what and follow through by making quality lifestyle changes that will help them lose fat and keep it off.
Bottom line is you DO overeat. You may not eat an extrodinary amount, but if you took in less calories than you burned your body would use up the nutrients in the other tissues of your body. You would lose weight. If you are gaining weight, you are consuming more calories than your body needs.
Bottom line is, if you are serious about achieving that 200lbs mark there is only one way to do it, get serious. It will mean making difficult choices like eating foods you don't like, giving up some things (soda, beer, ice cream, whatever...), not going out as much as you used to, etc... but it can be accomplished. Just remember weight is not something you will get under control in a day. Set realistic goals and when you have a bad day don't beat yourself up about it.
Don't assume fat people have a choice. Most would rather be slender, but nature is working against us.
Nonsense. EVERYONE has a choice. We may not be willing to make the choices that are required - or follow through with them, but there are very few people in this world that could not improve their overall health by adjusting their diet or increasing their activity level.
Find coupons in Greeley
Personal responsibility is something woefully lacking in todays society. Maybe I'm just the strong willed.
No, you bring up an excellent point. For months I didn't buy soda for the exact same reason. I would come home from work and have one or two or three. The best way for me to control it was to not buy it. Now I'm at the point where I can keep some soda in the cupboard and maybe drink one a week. I'm not really down with the buddhist, but would agree that there are very simple ways to boost willpower and set yourself up for success.
Find coupons in Greeley
I don't know if you've ever gone grocery shopping, but unhealthy food is dirt cheap. Healthy food is expensive as hell.
It's not necessarily the quantity of food that makes people fat. It's the quality. And the economics determines that. Fresh veggies and greens, and unprocessed meat costs a lot of money, but spoils quickly. Mass-produced, processed, deep fried, frozen, preservative and salt-laden, sweetened, food, is much cheaper to keep on the shelves, and much worse for you - dollar for dollar, and pound for pound.
People who eat at fast food restaurants every day, instead of taking the time to shop and prepare something healthy, are going to get fat. Of course, that's assuming that the person has the luxury of the spare time, and extra money to go the healthy eating route.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I use to be a great athlete with a perfect body. I was able to eat any kind of fast food as much as I wanted. 10 years ago during my university years I stopped sports and started drinking to much beer. Suddenly I wasn't able to eat as much as before I got from 155 pounds to 230 (I am 5'7"). Over the last 10 years I have tried and failed many times to lose weight but one thing remained in my mind. If I was once fit I am enable to do it again. I think the reason of my previous failures where that I wasn't trying hard enough; I was thinking: "well I once was slim only exercising and eating as much as I want then I can do it again!". Yes that plan was a total failure. Then I tried only making a diet and it failed for lack of motivation. 2 years ago I decided to make the "Overkill/bullet proof/all out war on weight" plan and got very good results. I started a diet + exercising 30 minutes 6 times a weak plus 4 hours of Tae Kwon Do + 4 hours of Aikido. It did was overkill! I did lost 35 pound in two month. Unfortunately I did not have the will to continue to work as hard but right now I am maintaining my weight at 185. Not perfect but I still thinking that I can do better and even if not doing an overkill plan I still exercisse 4 houres a week and watching what I eat.
... Shmonetics!
What is my point?
Take responsibility of your own actions!
When you want to achieve something you only fail when you decide to give up!
Genetics...
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove